F 74 

•B22 A9 
Copy 1 




ARGUMENT 



■IVERS J. AUSTIN 



COUNSEL FOR THE 



Remonstrants tot Wnkxtoimx, 



AGAINST THE PETITION 



FOR THE 



INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BELMONT, 



BEFORE THE' 



l/mt Siattog €ammittn jon f afok 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY ALFRED MUDGE AND SON, 

No. 21 SCHOOL STREET. 

1857. 




^ / Y-€j^%Jt^ry- 



OF 



ITERS J. AUSTI 



COUNSEL FOR THE 



§Um0ttsirats from lEafariohm, 



AGAINST THE PETITION 



FOE THE 



INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BELMONT, 



BEFORE THE 



loiitt Stanfomg Committee m $0hms. 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY ALFRED MUDGE AND SON, 

No. 21 SCHOOL STREET. 

18 5 7. 



<f*\ A- 



ERRATA 



Page 16, line 6, for half read double. 

" 21, " 17, " area read population. 

" 34, " 18, '•' of vend off. 

" 10, last line " 8 read 6. 

" 22, " 3, " 16 read 9. 

" 40, "24, " called read attended. 



INDEX TO ARGUMENT FOR REMONSTRANTS. 



Agricultural Capacity of Watertown, G 

Area of Watertown taken away, 5 

Area of Watertown left, character of, 7,8 

Beach St. School House, 43 

Beach St. School House, why erected, 44 

Belmont, character of, 20 

Bridges of Watertown, 10 

Common St. , widening of, 31 

Common St., digging out of, 31 

Culvert on Common St. , 31 

Cushing St., road to, 31 

Debt, Town of Watertown, 11 

Desire, feeble, of Belmont for incorporation, 26 

Depreciation, alleged, of real estate, 54 

Documents, Legislative, reference to, 24 

East School, action of Belmont people as to moving, .44, 45-48 

Education, expense of, 11 

Exigency, what is an, 17 

Exigency, none shown for division, 29 

Expenses of Watertown, 9 

Foreigners, population left and taken, 10 

Grievances, catalogue of, 30 

Grove St. , road from , 31 

High School House, 33 

High School, attendance at, 35 

Hittinger's road, widening of, 31 

Howard St. School, 41 

Indifference as to division, , . . .27, 28 

Influence, alleged attempt for on Legislature of ! 5Q, 38 

Injury to individuals, 6 

Injury to Town, 5 

Injury to Town summed up, 12 

Injury, time required to recover from, 12, 13 

Isolation, a reason for incorporating new lowns; 17 



INDEX. 

Journals from Senate and House, extracts from, 4L 

Land taken , character of, 7 

Land left, character of, 7,8 

Meeting House Hill, 34 

Offices held by Belmont people, 30 

Paupers left to Watertown, 10 

Policy of Commonwealth as to towns of small area, 20 

Population, policy as to towns of small, 21 

Population, towns of small, 21 

Railroad, Fitchburg, action of, 55, 56 

Rejection of prior petitions, 4, 5, 26 

Remonstrances, 29 

Rich men, Belmont a community of, 13 

Roads taken by Belmont, 9 

Roads, alleged grievances as to, 30 

Roads in more than one town , 33 

School accommodations sufficient, 52, 53 

School grievances alleged, 32 

School, Beach St., 43 

School House, Beach St., 43 

School House, East, character and condition of, 49 

Schools, East, character of, 48 

Schools, East, location of, 49 

School, East, refusal to move, 50 

School, Howard St., 41 

School Houses, where located, 33 

Schools, public, Belmont children attend, 52 

Shape of Watertown after division, 6 

Taxes, amount of taken by Belmont, 8 

Tax-payers, twenty-five highest, analysis of, 14, 15 

Town de facto, reason for division, 17 

Valuation , average division of, 13 

Valuation, amount of taken by Belmont 8 

Waverly, temporary school at, 36 

Waverly, how temporary school was obtained at,. . . i 46 

Waverly, why permanent school not established at, 37 

Waverly, objections of petitioners, 39 

Waverly objections answered, ■.-. 39, 40 

Wellington Hill people, no school requested by, 46 

Wellington Hill people, captious course of, 47 



The Petitioners in this case ask for the creation of another 
new town which as yet has no solid existence. 

They ask that another municipal corporation be established, 
having but. a small area and a small population scattered over 5.75 
square miles of surface. 

They ask to have this new town created by a mutilation of 
three other towns two of them already amongst the smallest in 
regard to surface, to be found in the Commonwealth. 

They ask to have this town created after three successive 
legislatures have refused their petition upon a full and fair hear- 
ing of all the reasons they advance in favor of it. 

They ask this action of the legislature against the earnest and 
decided remonstrance of each of the towns to be affected and against 
the deep and earnest feeling of a large majority of their legal 
voters. 

Is it expedient to create this new town ? 

Is it advisable for the supposed or even for the real benefit of 
a very small population clustering around a rail road station to in- 
troduce another Lilliputian stranger into our already numerous 
family of municipal corporations? 

Is the action asked of the Legislature in accordance with or 
opposed to those well settled principles of public policy which 
have guided Massachusetts while a Colony and a Province and an 
Independent Sovereignty? 



The importance of these questions and the general interest felt 
in the answer which shall be given to them require somewhat 
more extended examination of this case than has been usually 
bestowed upon those of similar description. 

I. 

The petition for the Incorporation of Belmont has been rejected 
by three successive Legislatures and each time upon the same 
facts : 

The three-fold rejection of the petition is proved by the follow- 
ing extracts from the Journals of the Senate and House : — 

House Journal, p. 482, March 3d, 1854. Mr. Brown from 
the Committee on Towns to whom was referred the petition of 
Charles Stone and others, reported that the petitioners have leave 
to withdraw their petition, accepted and sent up for concurrence. 

Senate Journal, p. 332, March 8th, 1854. A report from the 
House that Charles Stone and others have leave to withdraw 
their petition was read and accepted in concurrence. 

Senate Journal, p. 758, May 7th, 1855. The Bill to incorpo- 
rate the Town of Belmont was read a second time and refused a 
third reading. 

House Journal, p. 640, April 1st, 1856. Mr. Orcutt of Chelsea 
from the Committee on Towns, on the petition of Jacob Hittin- 
ger and others reported that the petitioners have leave to with- 
draw, accepted and sent to the Senate for concurrence. 

Senate Journal Duplicate copy, p. 4S9, April Sth, 1856. On 
motion of Mr. Odiorne the report of leave to withdraw on petition 
of Jacob Hittinger and others was discharged from the orders of 

the day. 

The same gentleman moved to amend the report by substitut- 
ing therefor "a bill to incorporate the Town of Belmont." Re- 
port and bill laid on the table — bill ordered to be printed. 



Senate Journal, Duplicate copy, p. 605, April 30^, 1856. The 
bill to incorporate Belmont read a third time and on question of 
passing the same to be engrossed — yeas 17, nays 13, passed and 
sent down for concurrence. 

House' Journal, p. 1031, May 22d, 1856. The report of the 
Committee on Towns, bill to incorporate Belmont, the question 
being on the rejection of the same — the vote being taken the bill 
was rejected. 

That this petition was thus rejected upon the same facts is 
sufficiently evident without any specific proof. But the witnesses 
for petitioners testified to the effect that there was no substantial 
difference between the case as presented this year and the case as 
presented in former years. 

n. 

If the town of Belmont shall be incorporated a serious and irre- 
parable injury will be done to Watertown. 

First. By taking more than one third part of its entire surface. 
The area of Watertown as at present existing, is, according to 

Senate Document of 1854, No. 51, 3,834.75 acres. 

Belmont proposes to take 1,446.40 



Leaving to Watertown, 2,388.35. 

The injury inflicted by this large diminution of its surface may 
be exhibited in several aspects. 

1st. Watertown has now a smaller surface than any other 
town in the State except thirteen. 

By depriving it of one third part of its present surface it will 
become smaller than any other town except the following seven 
viz : 

Provincetown, Winthrop, Chelsea, Hull, Marblehead, Somer- 
ville, Rockport. 



6 

2nd. The shape in which Watertown will be left, should 
Belmont be incorporated — will be fantastic and ugly. 

This is seen by reference to the accompanying map where the 
shaded part represents the portion of surface intended to be 
taken, and the part not shaded what will be left as Watertown. 

3d. An incidental injury may be noticed here, viz : that to 
individuals. The southwest line is about 3.000 feet long. It 
passes through several lots owned by different individuals dividing 
them so that half of each will be in one Town and half in the 
other. The line commences in the front yard of one person. 

4th. Watertown is essentially an agricultural Town, deriving- 
whatever of character and influence it possesses chiefly from its 
agricultural capacity. 

By the statistics of Industry for 1856, it appears that Water- 
town is the eighth town in the County of Middlesex in the value 
of its agricultural productions ; the amount being $191,362 25. 

But every one of the Towns which produced a greater value, 
is larger in its surface. 

The following table will show the productions and area of 
each of the seven towns which produced more than Watertown, 

Acres. 

Framingham, $314,447 30 15,781 

Marlboro, 290,869 20 17,469 

Lexington, 282,335 90 10,695.18 

West Cambridge, 229,136 00 4,144 

Newton, 220,547 00 11,052 

Waltham, 216,595 00 8,899 

Concord, 209,466 00 14,580.75 

when therefore the comparative areas are considered it will 
appear that of the Towns in Middlesex County, West Cambridge 
is the most fertile and Watertown the second most productive 
town in the county. 

These two towns are in fact the market gardens of Boston. 



5th. That part of Watertown which it is proposed to take 
away from it, for the benefit of Belmont contains all the best land 
in the Town. 

This position is sustained by the testimony of both petitioners 
and remonstrants. 

Mr. Bright said, before the Committee, that the land was made 
better by cultivation. 

Mr. Hittinger said that in the season of them he sometimes 
carried to market three hundred bushels of tomatoes per day, 
gathered off of six to nine acres. 

The testimony of Mr. Nath. Whiting was as follows. "The 
agricultural character of the land is very good, better naturally 
and better by cultivation than in other parts of the Town." 

Mr. Seth Bemis testified that " he has been engaged in farming 
ten or twelve years — lives on his farm — is acquainted with the 
character of the land in the Belmont district of Watertown. A 
large portion of it is the best land in the State. He has been 
somewhat familiar with land in other parts of the Town. It is 
better than his own farm, except the marshy land near Fresh 
Pond." 

Besides the land — 58£ acres of the surface taken are part of 
Fresh Pond — acre for acre probably more valuable then the best 
land in the County. 

6th. While the surface taken is of such high character, that 
left is much of it not available for agricultural purposes. 

This will be apparent from the following statements being the 
testimony of Mr. Isaac Stone a native of the town. 

Charles River, 75 acres. 

Mount Auburn, - - - - - 116 

Arsenal Grounds, ----- 60 

" Marsh, ------ 7 

Catholic Cemetery, - 7 

Cambridge, do., (set off to Cambridge) 32 



Graveyards, 



303 acres. 



Acres. 

Area of Watertown, - 3,834.75 

Belmont part, ----- 1,446.40 



2,388.35 
Not available, 303 



Leaving, ------ 2,085.35 acres, 

including the village and the roads, rocks, marshes and other 
bare, barren and unproductive places. 

It is evident that a mortal blow will be inflicted upon this 
agricultural town, by depriving it of so much of its best land. 

It has been said that no real injury will be done to this town 
by depriving it of its outskirts, because it has a village with a 
population of some 3000 persons. 

The argument, if carried out to its legitimate extent, would 
reduce in the same way more than one-half the towns in the 
State. Watertown would finally be diminished to the mere area 
on which the village stands. 

Second. If Belmont shall be incorporated it will take a large 
part of the available means of Watertown and yet leave its 
expenses comparatively undiminished. 

1st. By the petitioners statement it will take 

of the total valuation. - - $1,074,500 00 

The Town Treasurer, however, Mr. Samuel 

Noyes gives the following figures : 
Total valuation of Watertown for 1856, - - 3,634,600 00 
Belmont will take ------ 1,091,850 00 

or thirty per cent. 

2d. The total tax for 1856, was - - - 23,112 60 

The total tax of persons living on the Belmont 

district of Watertown, is - 6,551 10 

or 28.3 per cent. 



It is said that this is not a fair representation of the real loss to 
Watertown, because of the valuation, $420,000 personal estate is 
in the hands of one person, and this will at some future time be 
scattered amongst the heirs, who may carry it out of the town. 

Whatever may be supposed to be the future state of things, the 
present loss will be the amount stated. If the separation had 
been made three years since, when it was first asked, the town 
of Watertown would have lost $9,000 ; the amount of tax assessed 
to this one person upon his personal and real estate being $3,000 
per annum. 

It is the present state of things alone which should be con- 
sidered, and not what possibly may be their condition at some 
future time. 

In the judgment of the remonstrants, the south line of the new 
town was made to embrace such a large proportion of the outskirts 
of Watertown, for the very purpose of including this large tax- 
payer ; because the operation of starting a new town is expensive : 
without some heavy tax-payers to assist the petitioners, taxes will 
be so high that persons will not incline to settle in their new 
town; and although it might possibly be more advantageous to 
the new town to have this large fortune divided amongst several 
persons, it is more advantageous to have it in the hands of one 
man than not to have it at all. 

Third. The expenses of Watertown will remain undiminished. 
1st. Roads. 

Miles. 

Total length of roads which the town now repairs, 26.52 
In the Belmont part of Watertown are - - 10.12 



Leaving - - - - - - - - 16.40 

One third of all the roads is 8.84 miles, and Belmont will take 
therefore 1.2S miles more than its proportion of length. 
• But there will be left to Watertown — 

1st. The great travelled thoroughfare from Waltham to Cam- 
bridge, passing through the centre of the village to Mount Auburn. 

2 



10 

2d. The bridge in the village, recently repaired at an expense 
of $2500. 

3d. The bridge at Bemis's factory, half of which Watertown 
is required to maintain. 

4th. The roads left are wider than the roads taken. 

While there is no bridge in the Belmont part of Watertown, nor 
ever can be, and the roads taken are not and probably never will be 
travelled thoroughfares. 

2d. The Paupers. 

In the Watertown Alms House there are - 13 paupers, of ages 
varying from 86 years to 3 years.* Of these there is but a single 
one who will be chargeable to Belmont, a woman of 56 years. 

The Alms House is a charge to the town, as no benefit is 
derived from pauper labor on the roads ; nor is the board of any 
pauper paid to the town. 

Except the single pauper named above, there is no proof that 
the Belmont District contains a single person likely to be a charge 
to the new town. The inhabitants are all either persons of fortune 
or far above the fear of poverty. 

3d. There will be an undue proportion of foreigners left in 
the old town. 

The population of the whole town was taken by Mr. Joseph 
Crafts, in the month of February last, and he is very experienced 
in that business. 

By his statements the whole population of Watertown is 3,558. 

Native. Foreign. 

Population of Belmont District, - - 349 203 

Population of old town, - 1,790 1,216 



2,139 1,419 

The whole number of foreigners in the whole town, from this 
statement, is 1,419 or 39.88 per cent, of the whole population. , 

* The ages are as follows: 86, 83, 56, 51, 48, 43, 33; and 8 children from 12 to 3 years. 



11 

Belmont contains 552 persons (according to Mr. Craft's census) 
out of the whole population. 

Therefore 39.88 per cent, of 552 should be foreigners, that is 
to say 220 persons out of 552 persons should be foreigners, whereas 
only 203 are such. 

Bat of these foreigners, 89 are transient persons, leaving only 
114 permanent foreigners among its population. 

4th. The Expense of Education. 

The whole number of school children (i. e. between 5 and 
15 years of age,) now in the whole town is by Mr. 
Craft's very carefully taken census, - 738 

Belmont if separated will take of these school children 

only - - - 90 



Leaving __----___ 640 

It takes 30 per cent, of valuation, and only 12. L9 per cent, of 
school children. 

The entire school establishment was instituted and is carried 
on in reference to the necessities of the whole town. To take 
away the 90 children, who have a right to attend the public 
schools, will obviously not at all diminish the expense of main- 
taining the schools. 

5th. The Town Debt. 

This amounts now to $ 30, 660, all of which, except $1,000, 
was incurred for school houses, and the Town House. 

There will be a difficulty attending the adjustment of this 
debt. 

The new town, if erected, will say that it ought not to be 
compelled to pay any part of it (except for one school house con- 
tracted for but not erected), because none of the buildings are on 
its territory. But the old town will say that the buildings were 
erected fairly with the consent of the whole town, for the use and 
need of the whole town, and upon the credit and basis of a cer- 
tain amount of taxable property. When petitioners take from the 



' f J y^ cji^tr^t^ 



M ^^u^^/ 



12 






town, 30 per cent, of that very taxable property, they ought to 
take at least 30 per cent of the debt. 

The injury to be done to Watertovvn if Belmont shall be incor- 
porated, may be summed up thus : 

It will take more than one-third part of the entire surface. 
The very best land within its limits, although it is an agricultu- 
ral town, and mutilate it into a fantastic shape. 

It will take 30 per cent, of the valuation, and 28.3 per cent 
of the taxes. 

It will leave two bridges and the most expensive roads to 
repair , all the paupers ; 648 out of 738 school children ; the 
greater proportion of foreigners, and a probability of the whole 
debt. 

This would seem to be inflicting a very severe blow upon the 
prosperity of this old town. 

But it is said that Watertown will recover the loss in a short 
time ; 3.2 years were assigned as the extent. 

The following calculation will show that Watertown will not 
recover the loss for more than ten years. 

The total valuation of 1855, was $3,558,700 

1840, was 1,462,750 



Gain in 15 years, $2,095,950 

One fifteenth of this gain is $139,730, being the average 
annual gain in valuation. 

Belmont proposes to take (according to the statement of the 
petitioners) $1,074,500. This sum therefore divided by the 
annual average gain, viz : $139,730 gives 7.62, years as the time it 
will take to recover the loss. 

But the annual average gain is estimated upon the whole capi- 
tal. The old town will be compelled to recover its loss with one 
third of that capital taken away. OneTftmL more time will be 
required to compensate for one third part less means. 







1 

■ S ?' 

13 

Instead of only 7.6'jJf years, it will take at least 10.16 years. 

This great injury is to be inflicted on Watertown for the crea- 
tion of a community of rich men. 

The following figures not only show this to be the character 
of Belmont, but prove that the new community will be made 
thus rich at the expense of the inhabitants of the old town. 

1st. If the whole valuation of Belmont as stated by petition- 
ers' witness, viz : $1,836,015 be divided amongst the whole pop- 
ulation of Belmont, as stated by the same witness, viz: 1,101 
persons — each man, woman and child will receive $1,667 58. 

2d. If the whole valuation left to Watertown after the sepa- 
ration shall be effected, viz, $2,484,200 be divided amongst the 
whole population then left to Watertown, viz, 3,006, each indi- 
vidual will receive $826 41, or not quite half as much per head 
as those in Belmont. 

3d. If the whole valuation of Watertown as now existing, 
stated by the same witness to be $3,558,700, be divided amongst 
the whole population of Watertown, as given by Mr. Crafts, or 
3,558 persons, each individual will receive $1,000 19. 

4th. If the whole valuation to be taken from Watertown and 
given to Belmont, as stated by petitioner's witness, viz : $1,174,500 
be divided amongst the whole population to be taken from Water- 
town, according to Mr. Craft's census, viz : 552, each individual 
will receive $1,946 55, being a gain by the separation of $946 36 
to each person. 

5th. If from the whole valuation of Belmont, viz : $1,836,015, 
the largest amount of personal estate in the hands of any one 
person, be deducted, viz : $420,000, there will remain $1,416,015, 
which divided amongst the total population of Belmont, or 1,101 
persons, will give to each person $1,284 30. 



14 

6th. If from that portion of the valuation of Belmont, derived 
from Watertown, viz : $1,074,500, be deducted $420, 000, and 
the remainder, or $654,500 be divided amongst the population 
taken from Watertown, or 552, each individual will have .$1,185 70. 

Therefore it appears that every person in Watertown as Water- 
town is now constituted, would receive upon a division of the 
valuation $1,000 19. 

The legislature is asked to take away 552 of these persons, and 
put them into a separate community, where each would receive 
upon a like division $1,667 58, and their neighbors in the old 
town be left with $826 41 to each person. 

The legislature is asked to take out of a town which would 
divide $1,000 19 per head, so much of its valuation as divided 
amongst the persons taken at the same time, would give to each 
$1,946 55. 

These figures support the position that the new town will be a 
community of rich men. 

It is seen in a clearer light by the following statements: — 

At the requisition of the petitioners the remonstrants produced 
a list of the twenty-five highest tax-payers in Watertown. 

It will be found appended hereto with the Treasurer's cer- 
tificate. 

From this list it appears that eight of these tax-payers reside in 
Belmont, and seventeen in the old town. 

The Belmont eight are taxed for - - - $743,700 00 

The other seventeen are taxed for - - 913,000 00 

The entire tax paid by the eight is - - 4,462 20 

The entire tax paid by the seventeen is - 5,578 00 

If the whole valuation of the eight persons in Belmont be 
equally divided amongst them, each will receive $92,962 50. 
But if the whole valuation of the 17 persons in the old town be 
divided equally amongst them, each will receive $53,705 90. The 
difference is $39,256 60. 



15 

If the largest amount of personal property owned by any one 
tax-payer be deducted from the total valuation on each side of the 
line, then the following results will appear : — 

The whole valuation of the eight persons in Belmont is $743,700 
The largest amount of personal property in any one 

person's hands, is ______ 420,000 



The remainder is $323,700 

Which divided amongst the eight Belmont tax-payers will give 
$40,462 50 to each of the eight. 
The whole valuation of the seventeen persons in the 

old town is $913,000 

The largest amount of personal, the income of which 

is received by one person, is composed of three 

items, $25,000 

125,000 

200,000 
$350,000 



The remainder is $563,000 

Which divided amongst the seventeen tax-payers, will give to 
each $33,117 64. 

After the deductions are made of the personal property which 
may be carried out of the town at the death of its owners, the 
eight Belmont tax-payers, will still receive upon a division of the 
remaining valuation, each the sum of $7,344 76 more than the 
seventeen tax-payers of the old town will receive upon a like 
division of the remaining valuation. 

If the real estate only in each portion of the town be considered, 
the following result will appear : — 

The valuation of the real estate of the eight tax-payers in Bel- 
mont, is $253,700, which equally divided amongst the eight 
persons will give to each, $31,712 50. 

The valuation of the real estate of the seventeen tax-payers in 
the old town is $262,000, which equally divided amongst the 
seventeen persons, will give to each $15,411 80. 



16 

These results may be thus summed up : — 

1st. Of the 25 highest tax-payers in the whole town, seventeen 
tax-payers in the old town pay only $1,115 80 more tax than 
half their number in the Belmont district of Watertown. 

2d. The eight tax-payers in Belmont have an average valuation 
of $39,256 60 more than half their number in the old town. 

3d. If there be deducted on both sides of the line of division, 
the largest valuation of personal property in the hands of any one 
tax-payer, the eight persons in Belmont will still have an average 
valuation of $7,344 76 more than twice their number in the 
old town. 

4th. If only the real estate be considered, each of the eight 
tax-payers in Belmont will have an average valuation of $15,411 80 
more than twice their number in the old town. 

5th. Eight tax-payers in Belmont hold 40.5 per cent, of the 
whole valuation, in the proposed new town, and 60 per cent, of 
that part of the valuation taken from Watertown. 

To erect this town will therefore be by arithmetical demonstra- 
tion to erect a little community of rich men, at the expense of 
their neighbors. 

III. 

Such is the great injury which will be done to Watertown by 
creating Belmont. 

The question to be answered by the committee is whether the 
petitioners have succeeded in proving an exigency for the crea- 
tion of Belmont, by the division of three other towns. 

The burden of proof being on the petitioners, they have 
attempted to meet it by raking and scraping up every cause of 
complaint, plausible or imaginary, which has occurred in Water- 
town for the last twelve years. 



17 

But the question is not merely whether causes of complaint 
exist, but also, whether, supposing it to be proved that such 
causes do exist, they amount to such an exigency as will justify 
the committee in reporting a bill to create Belmont. 

This exigency must be proved to exist as to each town, and 
not merely as to one or even two of the towns to be affected. 

If the necessities of these petitioners who belong to West 
Cambridge — if the " grievances " suffered by them are sufficient 
to justify a division of West Cambridge, but yet a town cannot 
properly be made out of West Cambridge territory alone, a bill 
ought not to be reported to divide Watertown unless an exigency 
be equally proved to exist for the division of Watertown. 

Watertown ought not to be mutilated for the benefit of West 
Cambridge malcontents. 

West Cambridge ought not to be mutilated for the benefit of 
Watertown speculators. 

Even .67 of a square mile ought not to be taken from the ter- 
ritory of Waltham, especially in the face of its remonstrance, 
merely to make the town of Belmont as symmetrical as its name 
is musical, unless an exigency be proved to exist for this division 
of Waltham. 

The committee in order to determine what amounts to an exi- 
gency, will resort to the past legislation of the State, as to which 
the following propositions are submitted. 

The exigency which in former years has been deemed sufficient 
to justify the incorporation of a new town, created by the division 
of one or more old towns, is either 

1st. Where there was a distinct isolation of the community 
seeking to be incorporated ; or 

2d. Where it existed as a town de facto, possessing every ele- 
ment of a separate town except legal existence. 

The question as to the policy of incorporating Belmont, so far as 
its area is concerned, is whether a very small town shall be made, 
3 



18 



having a surface of only 3,680 acres, principally out of two other 
very small old towns, each but a very little larger than the town 
it is proposed to create. 

With respect to population, the question is whether a new 
town with so small a population as that of Belmont shall be 
made, having according to the census of the petitioners only 1101 
persons, but according to the more recent census of Mr. Crafts, 
having only 939 persons.* 



1st. 
area. 



The policy of the State in the creation of towns of small 



Of 331 towns in Massachusetts, the following are the only 
ones, the area of which is now smaller than Watertown is with 
its present surface or than Belmont seeks to be. 



Provincetown, 

Winthrop, 

Nahant, 

Hull, - 

Chelsea, 

Rockport, 

Marblehead, - 

Somerville, - 

Brighton, 

Melrose, 

Stoneham, 

Winchester, - 

Clinton, 



Acres. 

330.75 



1246. 

1161.50 

1835.50 

2049.50 

2233.375 

2775.00 

2815.7-12 

2888.1-3 

3555.75 

3727. 



Incorporated. 

1727 

1852 
1852 
1644 
1738 
1840 
1649 
1842 
1S09 
1850 
1725 
1850 
1850 



* The petitioners say they take from Watertown, 
Mr. Crafts finds only .... 

Difference, 
To this should be added 



625 persons. 
552 

73 

89 transient foreigners. 



Making . . . . 162 the number to be 

deducted from 1101 stated to be the total population of Belmont. This de 
duction being made, the total population will be 939 persons. 



19 

Of these thirteen towns only eight were incorporated since 
1S00. Of these eight, seven were incorporated within twenty- 
five years past, or since Railroads have exerted an influence upon 
the location of population. 

It is evident, therefore, that the Legislature has not in times 
past incorporated many towns of small area. Even some of 
those above named, were once larger than they are now. 

The incorporation of five of these towns, viz : Provincetown, 
Winthrop, Nahant, Marblehead, and Hull, is clearly accounted for 
by their situation. Each is at the extremity of a peninsula. 
The same reason which in the 17th century rendered it wise to 
create Hull and Marblehead, and in the 18th century to create 
Provincetown, rendered it equally wise in the 19th century to 
create Nahant and Winthrop. 

These facts develope one rule of policy, viz : a town is always 
created when there exists a well defined isolation ; not a fanci- 
ful isolation like that claimed for Belmont, but one determined 
by distinct boundaries. 

The same cause created Stoneham and Brighton. The former 
was settled in a comparative wilderness, and the latter at a con- 
siderable distance from Cambridge of which it formed a part. 

Whether or not any such isolation exists in regard to Belmont, 
will readily be determined in the negative by looking at the map 
of that town, or even at that part of it which now forms a por- 
tion of W'atertown. 

The only pretence of such an isolation is to be found in Meeting 
House Hill, the height of which does not prevent five children 
from going over it every day to attend the High School in the 
village. There is no other isolating boundary to be found on the 
lines of the new town. The hill hardly amounts to an incon- 
venience ; it certainly is not such an obstacle to travel upon the 
very excellent road that runs over it, as to require a division of 
the town. It is the most commanding and beautiful site for 
private dwelling houses in the vicinity of Boston. 



20 

Of the remaining five towns incorporated since 1S00, every one 
was incorporated since 1839 ; that is to say, since railroads 
influenced the location of population. 

The policy which dictated the creation of these five towns is 
that to which the Committee should look in determining this 
question. 

Each one of these five towns was already existing as a town 
of size and importance when it ivas incorporated. 

Rockport — Incorporated in 1S40 ; had a bank, 4 churches, a 
factory, making annually 1,300,000 yards of cotton duck ; a 
cordage factory, several stores, and a population of 2,650. 

Somerville — Incorporated in 1842; had extensive bleaching and 
dye works, and in 1850 a population of 3,540. 

Melrose — Incorporated in 1850; had a population of 1260, and 
in 1855, a village of 650 inhabitants and 4 churches. 

Winchester — Incorporated in 1850 ; had a population of 1353. 

Clinton — Incorporated in 1852 ; was already a large manufactur- 
ing town, having a large water power on the Nashua river, and 
the Lancaster Mills, making 500,000 pieces of gingham annually. 

There is nothing of this kind in the whole of Belmont. 
There is no business center nor anything approximating to 
such, in the whole proposed town. 

There is a cluster of houses about a railroad station, by far the 

GREATER PART OF WHICH ARE ON THE WEST CAMBRIDGE SIDE OF 

the line. Not more than eight are on the Watertown side. A 
glance at the map will show this. A view of the town will 
show it as well. 

There is one little store, such as is usually found in a railroad 
station ; one unfinished little church ; two post-offices, one at 
Mount Auburn Station, for Cambridge people, and the other at 
Wellington Hill. 

There are no shops where mechanics work, no house of public 
entertainment, out of the 170 legal voters, only fifteen are 



21 

mechanics ; upon the entire area there are not more than three 
or four mechanic's shops, and these have been there many years. 

There is nothing which makes a town except people and 
houses, and these for the most part are scattered over four square 
miles of territory. 

What sort of a town is this to set up for itself? 

Town lines cannot alter business relations ; Watertown millers 
must still grind West Cambridge corn. They have no water 
power in Belmont, nor ever can have. 

Waverly people and Belmont people must still purchase their 
supplies in Watertown, West Cambridge, or Boston, till Belmont 
gets a village. 

The mere act of incorporation cannot create these things. 

A town on paper, with well defined lines and a symmetrical 
outline, cannot create them. 

2d. The policy of the State, in the incorporation of towns of 
small area. 

Of 331 towns and cities in Massachusetts — 

78 were incorporated before - - - 1700 

193 " « " 1800 

60 " " since - - - 1800 



331 



Sixty towns only, of all sizes, have been incorporated during 
this century, and of these sixty towns, twenty-eight were incor- 
porated since 1830. 

There are eighty-three towns in Massachusetts with a population 
smaller than that of Belmont, supposing it to contain 1101 persons, 
which it does not. 

Of these 83 towns — 

7 were incorporated before - 1700 

60 » " " 1800 

16 " " since - - 1800 

S3 



22 

Of those incorporated during this century — 

7 were incorporated since - 1S30 

16 " " before - - - 1830 

It therefore appears that of the sixty towns of all sizes incor- 
porated during the present century, only sixteen have a population 
as small as that alleged to be in Belmont ; and of these sixteen 
only seven were incorporated since the year 1830. 

It is obvious that no rule of policy applicable to present legis- 
lation, can be derived from the action of the Legislature in the 
17th or 18th centuries, because the circumstances and relative 
situation of the people were so different from those of this day. 
One rule would exist while the State was in the process of form- 
ation — another after it had become more thickly settled. 

No rule for the incorporation of small towns can be derived 
from any legislation except that of the present century. 

The question is not merely as to the policy of dividing a town 
with a population as large as that of Watertown ; but also as to 
the expediency of incorporating a town with a population so 
small as that of Belmont — really possessing not more than 939 
persons, and having claimed for it only 1101 persons. 

Even should it be admitted (which is obviously false) that no 
harm will be done to Watertown by taking away 15J per cent, 
of its population, it by no means follows that it is good policy, 
or in accordance with the past policy of the State, to incorpo- 
rate so small a town as Belmont. 

It is well known that since railroads have been introduced 
into the State, they have very distinctly influenced the location 
of population. 

Settlements have grown up in the vicinity of railroad sta- 
tions, and sometimes villages have been formed out of these 
settlements as the nucleus. 

All there is of a settlement in Belmont has grown up in this 
way. 



23 

Therefore, the question would seem properly to be, what 
policy has influenced the legislation of Massachusetts in the 
incorporation of towns of small population, since the introduc- 
tion of railroads. 

The same policy ought to influence the committee in their 
decision upon this application. 

Railroads have been " institutions " in the State not more 
than fifteen or twenty years. To avoid cavil, the small towns 
incorporated in Massachusetts, during this century, are divided 
into those created within twenty-seven years past, and those 
created prior to that time. 

What policy, then, guided the Legislature in the creation of 
the seven towns of a population smaller than Belmont, incorpo- 
rated within the last twenty-seven years ? 

They are the following : 

Erving, 

North Chelsea, 

Monterey, 

Marion, 

Winthrop, 

Nahant, 

North Reading, 

As a preliminary remark, it should be noticed that the incorpo- 
ration of this town, where the almost avowed object is specula- 
tion, calls for the exercise of peculiar watchfulness on the part of 
the committee, because around many Railroad Stations, houses 
have been built in which persons reside who have little connection 
with the country beyond their residence in it. They transact 
their business in the city, where they spend much the greater 
part of the day. Not only their business relations, but their 
social relations are in Boston. And it is a subject for grave con- 
sideration, whether settlements thus constituted ought to be incor- 
porated into towns, principally because they who own most of 
the adjacent land could sell it to more advantage under such 
circumstances. 



Pop. 

471 


County. 

Franklin, 


Incor. 

1838 


793 


Suffolk, 


1846 


823 


Berkshire, 


1847 


969 


Plymouth, 


1852 


366 


Suffolk, 


1852 


270 


Essex, 


1853 


1050 


Middlesex, 


1853 



24 

Of the seven towns named above, three, viz : Nahant, North 
Chelsea and Winthrop, were incorporated from causes peculiar to 
themselves, and which do not exist in regard to Belmont. 

Each one of the other four towns was an actually existing town 
when incorporated. Each had a distinct village, which no search 
was required to discover. As in the case of Newton, which is 
one town, with five villages. Each was a town de facto, impera- 
tively requiring to be made a town de jure. 

Erving had a saw-mill, a woollen factory, a tannery and water 
power on Miller's river. 

Monterey had a cotton and woollen factory. 

Marion was a whaling village. 

North Reading had five churches. 

The same policy was regarded in the incorporation of other 
towns of larger population than Belmont, such as Georgetown, 
Groveland, Rockport, Agawam, Ashland, Melrose, Westford, South 
Scituate and Clinton. Each one of these was incorporated within 
twenty-seven years past, had a population somewhat larger than 
the alleged population of Belmont, and was a town de facto at the 
time of its incorporation. 

Further proof of this policy may be found in reports made to 
the Legislature by former Committees, references to some of which 
are here given. 

West Newton, House Document, 1844, No. 22. 

Unionville, subsequently Ashland, House Document, 1846, 
No. 45. 

North Chelsea, House Document, 1846, No. 35. In this 
report the Committee say, " The Committee are opposed to the 
division of small towns, without urgent cause." 

West Roxbury, Senate Document, 1851, No. 82. The Com- 
mittee say, " Your Committee always feel reluctant to disturb 
old and well established town lines, without good and sufficient 
reasons." 






25 

Noi^th Andover, Senate Document, 1855, No. 74. The Com- 
mittee say, " The Legislature should be cautious and slow in 
increasing the number of towns in the Commonwealth, unless an 
exigency actually exists." 

Chapin, Seriate Document, 1855, No. 101. 

Danvers, Senate Document, 1855, No. 129. The Committee 
say, " The policy of the Legislature is to divide large towns, in 
order better to secure the objects of town government." 

Cushman, Senate Document, 1856, No. 103. 

From this review of the policy of the Commonwealth it 
appears : — 

That former Legislatures have respected town lines, as an 
institution not to be lightly or rashly disturbed. Their action 
has always been based upon an enlightened conservatism, yet 
town lines have been changed when good cause for the change 
was proved to exist. 

The causes deemed sufficient, have been a peculiarity of local 
situation, amounting to a practical isolation, or else the town 
seeking to be incorporated was an actually existing town at the 
time of its incorporation. 

The policy is the same in all parts of the State. There is no 
special cause inducing one course in reference to suburban towns 
and another as to those more inland. When an exigency exists, 
and is proved, not merely asserted to exist ; when it is a real and 
not merely a fancied exigency ; when a town is actually formed 
and not merely when it is likely to be formed at some future, but 
indefinitely remote period, the petition is granted, and the new 
town created, whether suburban or inland. 

The Legislature never yet have granted, and it is to be hoped 
that many years will pass before they will think of granting an 
act to incorporate a new town merely for the purpose of inducing 
4 



26 

persons to leave the city for the country, or to leave an old town 
for a new one, or to increase the value of land owned by the 
petitioners, or for any other merely speculative purpose. 

Before considering the case which the petitioners have sought 
to make upon the evidence produced, there are three preliminary 
points deserving consideration. 

1st. If this Committee deem itself bound to be guided in any 
degree by the past legislation of Massachusetts, the three-fold 
rejection which this petition has received, is an important element 
for their consideration. 

Because such repeated rejections are so many legislative declar- 
ations, that to grant the prayer of the petition would not accord 
with the established policy of the State. 

This speculation was not such an one as the Legislature was 
willing to aid. 

This was not so strong a case as to render it expedient to dis- 
turb old and well established town lines. 

If the petition succeed, the opposition of the remonstrants must 
cease of necessity. 

If the petition fail, the petitioners may renew it whenever their 
case becomes stronger. 

2d. Although it has been represented that a very general, a very 
earnest, and a unanimous desire exists amongst the people of the 
proposed new town for a separate incorporation, yet the proof in 
the case does not support the assertion. 

If any bad feeling exists in reference to the subject, it is all on 
one side. The inhabitants of the old town entertain none but 
the kindest feelings towards those who seek to separate from 
them. 

An important part of the petitioner's case, is the general desire 
of the people for a division. The petitioners allege the existence 
of this desire, and are bound to prove it. 



27 

They have attempted to do this by loose and vague testimony, 
which at best is but the expression on the part of three or four 
witnesses — themselves petitioners — of their opinion as to the 
existence of this desire. 

If an inhabitant in the district of Watertown proposed to be 
separated, is indifferent as to whether or not the separation is 
effected, it is just as good for the remonstants as open opposition. 

He who is indifferent does not desire to be separated, because 
if he desired to be separated he would not be indifferent. 

In 1854, there were 1005 inhabitants in the proposed new 
town, and 126 petitioners, or 12£ per cent, of the population. 

In 1857, there are said to be 1101 inhabitants and 130 petitioners, 
or 11.8 per cent, of the population. 

Therefore in three years, they have rather fallen off than gained 
in the number of petitioners. 

They say they have 170 legal voters, which would make one 
voter represent 6.4 persons, a rather unusual rate, especially in 
small towns, where one voter generally represents 4 persons. 

Out of the whole number of voters, forty or 23£ per cent, do 
not petition. 

This deficiency does not indicate a very remarkable unanimity. 
It is not such a fact as would tend to prove a unanimous desire 
for the division. 

It may be safely inferred that these forty voters are at least 
indifferent, and the petitioners therefore fail in their proof so far 
as these forty are concerned. 

Amongst these forty voters will be found the largest tax-payer 
in the town, from whose magnificent country-seat the new town 
derives its name. 

This gentleman declined to take any active part in this contro- 
versy, but for three successive years he has expressed in writing 
his desire to remain where he is, and the Committee have the 
written testimony in their hands. 

Certainly the judgment of this gentleman as to the expediency 



28 

of the proposed change, ought to weigh at least as much as that 
of his hired Irishmen, two of whom are signers on the petition. 

A widow lady who pays a tax of $201, has expressed in writing 
the same desire. The Committee have also in their possession 
written evidence of this fact. Though not a voter, certainly her 
desire should have some weight. 

Were it deemed as proper to give names in print as freely as 
they were mentioned before the Committee, the forty persons not 
petitioners would be found to be some of the worthiest, most 
respectable and soundest men in the town ; some residing in 
Waverly village, and others in different parts of the Belmont 
district. 

The Waverly Company itself does not petition, and yet it pays 
a tax of $192. The indifference of this Company presses 
heavily on the projectors of this scheme — for the Company was 
created for the purpose of building a village. It hopes to make 
money by selling its land. If separation were advantageous it 
would not be indifferent. 

But it is obvious that to many of the petitioners the separation 
can be of no practical advantage. 

What possible advantage can it be to any person who lives on 
Belmont street? Every such person will be just as far from the 
new centre at Wellington Hill as he is now from the Town 
House in the village of Watertown. A mere glance at the map 
will show this to be true. 

Why then did these persons sign the petition ? 

There is an old story of a man who obtained a large number 
of signers to a petition to have the chief justice hanged. 

As in that case so in this. 

Some persons signed because others did so. 

Some signed merely to oblige their neighbors. 

Some signed because they are indifferent. They would have 
signed a remonstrance just as readily had it been first presented. 

Some sign because they do not believe the prayer of the peti- 
tion will be granted. 



29 

Some sign under a misapprehension of the effect to be produced. 

Dr. Howes testified before the Committee that in his opinion 
the half of his lot of land which the new line puts into Belmont, 
would be taxed as much as the whole lot is now taxed in Water- 
town — because the expense of starting a new town required high 
taxation. 

Some of the petitioners might have declined to sign, had they 
viewed the matter in this aspect of it. 

The omission of forty voters out of 170 is therefore a serious 
falling off from this alleged general desire for separation. 

3d. With the petition may be considered the remonstrances 
against it. 

There is a municipal remonstrance, made at a town meeting 
specially convened for the purpose and which was adopted with- 
out a dissentient vote. 

There is an individual remonstrance signed by 340 legal voters 
representing according to the ratio in Watertown, 2040 out of 
3006 inhabitants left in the old town. 

The facility with which witnesses were obtained — the willing- 
ness with which day after day and night after night they left 
their immediate affairs to testify before the Committee, shows 
the energy and heartiness and sincerity of the opposition. 

Had half the exertion made to obtain petitioners, been employed 
to obtain remonstrants, probably the name of every legal voter who 
could write would have been found on the remonstrance. 



IV. 



The petitioners have altogether failed to show any exigency 
requiring the incorporation of Belmont. 

The alleged "grievances" the combination of which is sup- 
posed to amount to such an exigency are four in number, viz : 



30 

1st. A sort of ostracism by which the inhabitants of the Dis- 
trict are excluded from the town offices. 

2d. The want of good roads, and the inability to obtain them 
without the concurrent action of three towns. 

3d. A want of sufficient school accommodations, and an un- 
willingness on the part of the town to provide them. 

4th. An alleged, depreciation in the value of real estate as a 
consequence of the three preceding "grievances" 

1st. With respect to the first of these alleged grievances, the 
testimony of Mr. Ingraham, the Town Clerk, who produced the 
town records, shows that it is a mere fancy. 

The town has always chosen, annually, three Selectmen, three 
Assessors, and three Overseers of the Poor, who are also Highway 
Surveyors. 

The town records show that the inhabitants of the Belmont 

district of Watertown have had of these officers as follows : 

In 12 years 12 Selectmen out of 36 

10 " 8 Assessors out of 30 

12 " 12 Overseers of the Poor out of 36 

Its population of 552 would entitle it to only 15.5 per cent, of 
these officers. Yet it has had 33£ per cent, of Selectmen and 
Overseers of the Poor, and 26.6 per cent, of Assessors. 

If during these twelve years it never asked for more roads, or 
more school accommodations, the town had every reason to 
believe that nothing more was needed there. 

2d. The grievances as to roads. 

The testimony upon this point was very general and very 
vague — much of it drawn out by leading questions of the most 
pointed character. Much of it was given under evident bias of 
which two instances may suffice as a specimen, viz : One gentle- 



31 

man while testifying, said that " Watertown ought to be sunk," 
— and another lost no opportunity of assigning a bad motive to 
every measure adopted by the town in favor of his section of it. 

The roads were admitted by all the witnesses for the petition- 
ers to be in good order. 

Only the following causes for specific complaint were named, 
viz : 

a. A culvert on Common Street was broken in 17th Feb., 
1855, and not mended till June. 

The desire was to show a wilful neglect — but the surveyor of 
highways proved that the culvert was broken in by a great 
freshet — mended temporarily within a week so that teams could 
pass safely over it ; and in June, when it was proper to do so, 
mended thoroughly with new foundations. It never broke before 
and has never broken since. 

b. One witness said that Common Street was not dug out 
this winter for a fortnight after the snow. 

But the surveyor of highways testified that it was cleared out 
by himself three or four times a week, from the day the snow fell. 

c. Mr. Hittinger had to pay $200 for widening a part of 
School street, which the town should have done for him. But this 
was more than three years since, and the surveyor of highways for 
that year testified that Mr. Hittinger would not wait for the town 
to do it. Besides he has never requested the town to re-imburse 
him. 

d. The town being required to straighten Common Street, 
refused to do it. The County Commissioners compelled them to 
do it. This was no less than eleven years ago. 

e. One witness desired a road from Grove street to Cushing 
street. The Selectmen recommended $ 300 to be granted towards 
building it, not deeming the road of sufficient public necessity to 
justify a larger public expenditure ; yet the town would not grant 
even that sum. 



32 

But then, the rejection of the recommendation was made on 
motion of a Belmont man, in the absence of the person desiring 
the road, and the town at its recent meeting, March 9, upon a 
proper representation of the case, granted $500 to build it. 

These are the only specific causes of complaint which the 
petitioners, with all their exertions, were able to bring against 
the town, in the matter of roads. It would be inexcusable to 
notice them in this manner, were it not that they demonstrate 
the difficulty which the petitioners experience in their endeavors 
to show an exigency for the division. The " vigor of the bow " 
does by no means correspond with the " venom of the shaft." 

The principal "grievance" however, in this respect is, that 
roads are needed, to build or mend which, requires the concurrent 
action of the three towns, out of which Belmont is to be created. 

The only road specified, requiring the action of more than one 
town, is the " Concord turnpike," all of which is in West Cam- 
bridge, except 1500 feet, which are in Watertown. 

Not a single witness named any road which was required by 
the new town. 

One witness thought that it would be a public benefit to have 
School street continued to the Concord turnpike, but the whole 
of it would lie in Watertown if made, and no person ever applied 
to the town to have it built. 

3d. A want of sufficient school accommodations and an unwil- 
lingness on the part of the town to provide them. 

This alleged " grievance" has been insisted upon to the Com- 
mittee, with a pertinacity remarkably disproportioned to the proof. 

Great stress was laid upon it in the Senate of 1856, and the 
entire misapprehension of the true state of the case on the part of 
the Senate was probably one reason why the bill to incorporate 
Belmont, succeeded in that branch of the legislature. 

The attempt has this year been not only to impress the Com- 
mittee that more schools are needed, but that Watertown is indis- 
posed to furnish them. 



33 

The position taken by the remonstrants, and which the history 
of the action of the town for the past four years will prove to be 
true, is this : — 

Watertown has done all that has been asked of it ; and it is 
now as ready and willing, as it is able, to do all that can rea- 
sonably be required of it in regard to 'public schools, for every 
part of its population. 

The subject is so important in itself, and a right comprehension 
of it will so demonstrate the entire absence of an exigency 
requiring a division, that the history of the schools will be some- 
what minute. 

There are at present in Watertown five school houses — four 
finished and one nearly completed. 

In addition to these, one has been contracted for, the money 
($3,500) granted, and the land purchased and paid for. -j 

By recurring to the map the location will be readily seen. 

The mark A is on the site of that last above named, which is 
called the Beach Street School House. 

C is the old school house for the west school division of the 
town. It is soon to be displaced by that marked B, which is 
called the Howard Street School House. 

D is the School House for the village or centre school division. 

E is the High School House. 

F is the East School House. 

The High School House. 

Rev. Sts. c. 23, $ 5, provide that a town containing 500 
families shall keep a school for all the inhabitants. 

The town clerk testified that in 1S53 when the high school 
was established, there were 593 families in the town. 

Therefore the high school was built because it was required 
by law, and not to gratify a desire to expend money unnecessa- 
rily because people living in the outskirts had to pay. 
5 



34 

No objection has been made to the cost of it. 

As a high school is intended for all the inhabitants, its location 
should be in the centre of population, which Mr. Crafts thinks is 
at the point marked on the map G. To accommodate that part 
of the population residing in Belmont it was placed a quarter of 
a mile to the eastward of that centre. 

Every desire specially to accommodate the inhabitants of that 
part of the town was manifested in the location of this school 
house. 

The convenience of the inhabitants of the village was disre- 
garded in favor of those living in the Belmont district. 

The plausible objection is, that the petitioners are taxed for a 
school which circumstances prevent them from using. 

They say that they are so far off that they cannot avail them- 
selves of its advantages. 

Meeting House Hill, for this purpose is magnified into a moun- 
tain range. It is said to form an impassable barrier, cutting them 
of from the high school. 

The answer to this objection is, that although it would be 
easier to reach the school house if the hill were not there — yet 
the school house is used notwithstanding the hill. 

It was in testimony that out of the 90 school children in the 
Belmont district, six attend the high school. Five out of the 
six reside on Common street which passes over the hill, and two 
of the six are children of petitioners. 

Divide the town as petitioners desire, and these six children 
will be deprived of the great advantage which they now enjoy, 
of attending a high school of excellent character. Four out of 
the six are children of parents who do not petition, and of whom 
it can therefore be said that they do not desire the division. 

But the following statements from authentic sources, show 
that distance is no obstacle to the use of this school. 

In April, 1854, the admissions into the high school, were as 
follows : — 



35 

The "Middle District " is the village and it had 321 scholars. 
Of these, 14 or 4.36 per cent, were admitted into the High 
School. 

The " West District " is all the west part of the town. It 
had 106 scholars. Of these, 8 or 7.54 per cent, were admitted 
into the High School. 

The " East District " includes the Belmont part of the town, 
and the portion near Mount Auburn. It had 117 scholars. Of 
these, 11 or 9.4 per cent, were admitted into the High School. 

From the School Committee's Report of 1855-6, it appears 
that :— 

The Middle District Grammar schools had 126 scholars, 
of whom 15 or 11.9 per cent, were promoted into the High 
School. 

The West District Grammar School had 50 scholars, of 
whom 7 or 14 per cent, were promoted into the High School. 

The Cast District Grammar School had 60 scholars, of whom 
12 or 20 per cent, were promoted into the High School. 

In 1855, the average attendance in this school was as follows : 
Middle District, 31, or 9.65 per cent, on 321 scholars. 
West District, 12, or 11.32 " " 106 " 

East District, 21, or 17.94 " " 117 " 

In 1856, the average attendance was as follows : 

Middle District, 22, or 4.53 per cent, on 220 scholars. 
West District, 9, or 7.20 " " 125 " 

East District, 17, or 10.82 " " 157 " 

These statements show that a greater proportion of scholars are 
admitted, and there is a greater attendance in the school from the 
very section of the town in which Belmont is placed, than from 
either of the other sections. 

The reason may be (it is offered only as a suggestion) that 
when the weather is bad children near the school stay at home. 
It is too near to ride and too far to walk. They who reside at 
a distance usually ride every day. 



36 

The argument for a division of this town, so far as it is based 
upon the inconvenient distance of the High School, proves alto- 
gether too much. 

For create Belmont, and those persons now residing on Bel- 
mont Street will be as far from the new centre, at Wellington 
Hill, as they now are from the High School. 

Thus there must be another division or else no High School. 

But the children of this District will gain nothing in this 
respect if the division be made. 

For the 90 school children now there will leave a town which 
has a High School for one that has none, and which will not be 
obliged to maintain one. 

In 1854, the population was said to be 1005. In 1857 it is 
said to be 1101. A gain in three years of 96, or not quite ten 
per cent, in three years. At this rate it will take them thirty 
years to grow to the capacity of a High school. 

It is very improbable that with all their new buildings to erect, 
and the other causes of expense incident to a new town, they 
will be induced to establish a High School before they are 
obliged to do so. * 

Temporary School at Waverlv. 

The facts attending the establishment of this temporary school 
are as follows : — 

1. The first information given to the town that a school was 
needed in Waverly, is contained in the printed report of the 
School Committee of 1854-5, presented to the town at its annual 
meeting, in March, 1855, in which the Committee say: — 

" There are at Waverly village, 13 children between five and 
fifteen, which number will without doubt be increased, when 
some six or eight houses now being built, shall be occupied. 
Your Committee are not prepared to make a definite recommenda- 
tion, before it is apparent where increased room will be most 
needed ; but additional accommodation should be made, when 
some practicable plan can be hit upon to meet the exigency." — p. 8. 



37 

2. The next action in reference to this school is a petition 
from Messrs. Collins & Fillebrown, residents in Waverly, dated 
Nov. 1, 1855, and addressed to the School Committee, asking to 
have a school there, and the reply of Mr. Crafts, secretary of the 
School Committee, dated Nov. 6, 1S55, communicating the denial 
of this request, for four specified reasons, viz : — 

The want of funds. 

The location of the school was at the extreme border of the 
town, and once established there it could not be removed. 

There did not appear to be an extreme necessity for the school. 

The whole matter could be better arranged by the town at its 
annual meeting in the following March. 

3. The next proceeding was the establishment of a school at 
Waverly, commencing Jan. 14th, 1856, to continue to the end 
of the current school year, viz: March 1st, 1856. 

The reasons for this change of determination on the part of the 
School Committee, are set forth in their printed report, as 
follows : — . 

"The Committee are happy to state that their decisions have in most cases been har- 
monious, the question of establishing a school at Waverly having occasioned more contact 
of sentiment than any other, and upon this there is still a difference of opinion." 

" They would much rather have postponed all action on the subject, until the March 
meeting, but circumstances pressed, a majority of their number yielded, and established the 
school, Jan. 12, 1856, to continue to the end of the current school year." 

" The room for the school, and settees, are furnished free, while the expense of fitting up, 
fuel and teacher, is incurred by "the town. The whole expense will be about ninety dollars. 
Whether this shall become a permanent establishment, is a question for the consideration of 
the town, and the action of future Committees. 

" The school is under the management of Miss Rebecca Dowse, a teacher of whose abilities 
the town has had the benefit in times past, and who the Committee doubt not will be able 
to render a good account of her stewardship. There are twenty scholars in attendance." 

4. The next fact connected with this school is that it was 
established in the fall of 1856, and now exists. There are 
seventeen scholars, and the teacher has the usual salary of $225 
per annum. 



5. Concerning this school, Mr. Hamlin, a resident of Waverly, 
formerly a petitioner for division, who has one child, a boy of 
thirteen years old, attending it, testified that the school of 1856, 
"was very good indeed." Of the present school he said that u it 
was pretty good" the cause of such qualified commendation 
probably being the fact that his daughter is the teacher. He 
testified also that the people in Waverly " were and are satisfied 
with the school." 

This completes the history of the Waverly school. It is relied 
upon with great confidence, as proving that the town has shown 
an earnest and sincere desire to deal liberally and fairly with the 
inhabitants of that section of it. 

When the persons who are immediately interested in the 
school, are themselves satisfied with what was done, it is not for 
other persons to impeach the motives and decry the action of the 
town or the Committee. 

Yet this has been done. Mr. Meade, one of the most active 
petitioners, asserted that this school was established just before 
the petition for division was presented to the Legislature of 1856, 
and discontinued just after the petition failed. 

The intention of this testimony was to impress the Committee 
with the belief that the school was established on account of the 
petition for division, with the purpose of influencing the Committee 
and the Legislature of 1856, in their decision on the application. 
That nothing but the pressure of the petition for division, and the 
danger of its success, has produced at Waverly any school 
accommodations at all. 

This charge was industriously and to some extent successfully 
made during the session of 1856. An attempt of the same 
nature will in all probability be made this year. 

The charge is not based on direct evidence ; it is merely an 
inference from certain facts, and appears to be argued out thus : — 

The petitioners say to the town : " You were asked through 
your School Committee to establish a school for thirteen children 



39 

at Waverly, in November, 1855. and you refused to do so for 
four assigned reasons, each of which your subsequent action has 
proved to be false. 

" Your first reason was the want of funds ; but if you had no 
funds in November, you had no more, but rather less in January. 

" Your second reason was the location of the desired school ; 
but then it was in the same place in January as it would have 
been, had it been established in November. 

" Your third reason was, that extreme necessity for the school 
did not appear; but then there was no more necessity in January 
than there was in November. 

" Your fourth reason was that the matter could be better 
arranged at the town meeting in March; but if this was a good 
reason in November, it was a still better one in January." 

Having thus disposed of the assigned reasons, the petitioners 
seek for what they suppose to be the true ones. 

They find in the report of the School Committee that the 
school was established because " circumstances pressed." Thence 
they argue that the circumstances which pressed were the petition 
for division ; the consciousness that the town had failed in this 
school matter generally ; the danger of the petitioners' success if 
the Legislature or the Committee could not be induced to believe 
that the town had not been remiss. 

The answers to this theory are very cogent. 

1st. The reasons given by the Committee for not establishing 
a school at Waverly, as asked for by Messrs. Collins and Fille- 
brown, in November, 1855, apply only to a permanent school, 
which these gentleman requested. They do not apply to the 
temporary school, requested in December, and established in 
January, 1856. 

2d. The extreme necessity which did not appear in November, 
was made manifest in January, by the unusual severity of the 
winter. 



40 

3d. Even to establish this temporary school, the Committee 
were compelled to draw the small sum required to maintain it, out 
of the general contingent fund. It is more than doubtful if they 
had any right to do this. It is certainly true that they had no 
funds with which to establish a 'permanent school, the whole 
town and State grant having been appropriated for the other 
schools, before any request was made for that at Waverly. 

4th. More persons requested the school in January than in 
November. They urged their claims with greater earnestness. 
There were twenty-four children, instead of only thirteen. The 
Committee, like sensible men, yielded to the change of circum- 
stances, instead of obstinately adhering to their first opinion. 

Mr. Craft's testified that, " The question of the division of the 
town was never before the School Committee of 1855-6, in con- 
nection with establishing or rejecting a school at Waverly." 

Mr. Hamblin testified as follows: — 

" A year ago there was a difficulty about schools. There was no school till January, 
1856. There had been an effurt made but not in the right direction. So far as I know the 
question of establishing a school had never ben brought before the town. The requisi- 
tion had been made to the School Committee. I have found a willingness in the 
Town to accommodate the District. 

" The first petition was signed only by us on Waverly land, and we represented only a 
small number of scholars. A committee from Waverly, and two in the neighborhood then 
petitioned. 

" The first meeting was called by me under a misapprehension. We had been informed 
that none could be accommodated but Waverly people. Having these additional names 
made a difference. 

" The making of a school at Waverly did not depend upon the personal application of 
certain individuals. It is not true that some could and others could not obtain a school." 

To this charge of a desire to influence the Legislature, it 
may again be answered, that the absurdity of it is its clearest 
refutation. 

But the following comparison of dates will not only altogether 
dispose of the charge — but also show the extremity to which the 
petitioners are driven to secure the success of their application. 



41 

The assertion made is that the school at Waverly was ostab- 
lished just before the petition for division was presented to the 
Legislature of 1856, and discontinued just after the petitioners 
failed. 

January 14, 1856. School established at Waverly, to con- 
tinue to the end of the current school year. &. C. R. p. 13. 

January 19, 1856. Order of notice on the petition of Jacob 
Hittinger and others. Senate Journal of 1856, p. 87. 

March 21, 1856. School at Waverly discontinued. Mr. 
Craft's testimony. 

April 1, 1856. Leave to withdraw reported on the petition. 
House Journal, p. 640. 

April 8, 1856. Motion that bill to incorporate Belmont be sub- 
stituted for Report. Senate Journal, (dup. copy) p. 489. 

April 30, 1856. Bill passed by Senate. Senate Jour. p. 605. 

May 22, 1856. Same bill rejected by the House. House 
Journal, p. 1031. 

Thus it appears that this school, alleged to have been estab- 
lished merely for the purpose of influencing the Legislature in 
their action on the petition for division, was actually discontinued 
pending the hearing before the Committee on Towns ! ! 

Howard Street School House, marked B on the map. 
This school house is designed as a substitute for that marked 
C, on the map, which will be discontinued. 

The facts concerning the erection of this school house, are as 
follows : 

An article was inserted in the warrant, calling the annual 
Town Meeting of March 10th, 1856, " to see what action the 
6 



42 

town would take in relation to the building of a new school 
house in the West District." 

The West District comprehended Waverly. 

The article was referred to a committee of three persons, who 
reported to the town at the adjourned meeting held April 30th, 
1856. 

This committee state it to be their unanimous opinion, 
1st. " That a new school house should be built. 2d. That ?w 
regard should be had to the wants of Waverly. That a separate 
school should be provided for their children as has been done 
during the past winter." 

This report was not accepted by the town. 

The next action was at the same meeting, April 30, to appoint 
another committee of nine persons for the purpose of selecting a 
suitable lot for a new school house in the West District, and 
report the same, with the price demanded, to the town at a 
future meeting, with plan, estimates, and cost of building," &c. 

The Committee thus appointed April 30th, reported June 24th, 
'56, after the adjournment of the Legislature and the signal 
defeat of these petitioners first before the Committee on Towns, 
and then before the House of Representatives. 

In their report the Committee say that they caused " a meet- 
ing of the legal voters in the West District, including those in 
Waverly, to be called, and submitted to them the following 
questions : 

" Shall the new school house be located on Myrtle Street, or 
in its vicinity, or shall it be located in the vicinity of the corner 
of Howard Street and Main Street ? " 

" And it was answered by a vote of 24 to 4 to recommend to 
the School House Committee, that the proposed new school house 
be located on the corner of Main and Howard Streets."* 

* Very few, if any, of the Waverly people attended this meeting. 



43 

A majority of this Committee recommended that the town 
should instruct the Selectmen to lay out and appraise one of two 
lots indicated, and they reported plans and estimates. 

A minority of the Committee reported that, in their opinion, 
the lot of land at the corner of Howard and Main Streets, was the 
most suitable location. 

The location recommended by the minority was adopted. The 
school house is erected, and will probably be occupied in July or 
August. 

It has been openly asserted by persons desiring a division of 
the town, that the interests of education, at least so far as those 
persons living at a distance from the village are concerned, are 
neglected, if not altogether disregarded. 

The action of the town in the erection of this school house, 
proves the assertion to be unfounded. 

Two committees, altogether twelve persons, had the subject 
before them three months. 

Every person specially interested was invited to signify where 
he wished the new school house to be located. 

Against the recommendation of ten persons out of twelve, on 
two committees, the town selected the location which the people 
desired. 

The school house was intended for the entire West District, 
including Bemis' factory and Waverly village. 

This action of the town certainly does not indicate a desire to 
neglect the educational interests of those persons who reside at 
a distance from the village. 

The Beach Street School House. 

This school house is to be located at a place marked A on the 
map. 

1st. An article was inserted in the warrant calling a town 
meeting for Nov. 4th, 1856, in these words, viz. : 

" To see if the town will build a school house to accommodate 
the north part of the town, grant money for the same, or act 
thereon." 



44 

The request of petition to the Selectmen for the insertion of 
tli is article in the warrant, was stated by Mr. Meacle with charac- 
teristic bias while testifying before the Committee, to have been 
'•-got up by outsiders,''' meaning by "outsiders" persons residing 
out of the district to be accommodated, and having no special 
interest in the school. 

The only evidence upon this point besides Mr. Meade's, is that 
of Mr. Hamlin, who testified, — 1st, That the petition was hand- 
ed to him by a Waved y man, and was signed by no other per- 
sons than inhabitants of Waverly. 2d, That the application to 
the Selectmen was made pursuant to a predetermined plan on the 
part of the Waverly people. He said, " At the time the school 
was stopped in March, '56, the School Committee said they had 
no authority to continue it. We determined that they should he 
instructed to establish the school, and we intended to see if the 
town would build a house. We considered that to be the fair and 
legitimate course to take. It had never been taken before" 

2d. The town meeting was holden Nov. 4th, '56, and a com- 
mittee was appointed, to whom the article concerning the erection 
of a school house to accommodate the north part of the town, 
was referred, with instructions to report in four weeks. 

3d. The same warrant contained an article in these words, 
viz. : 

" To see if the town will move the school now located on 
School street,* so as better to accommodate the inhabitants in 
the east part of the town, grant money for the same, or act 
thereon." 

This article was referred to the same Committee with the same 
instructions to report in four weeks. 

* Marked on the map F. - 



45 

From these facts it is apparent that the Town Committee had 
before them the whole subject of school accommodations for the 
entire Belmont part of the town, — all that territory which^is col- 
ored or shaded on the map. 

They were required to locate one new school house, and to 
alter the location of an old one. 

They were invested with full powers to recommend whatever 
in their judgment was advisable, and were under no obligation to 
consult any person. But they chose to consult the persons spe- 
cially interested in the arrangement. 

The section to be provided for was extensive, although there 
were only ninety school children on the greater part of it. 

There was, therefore, an obvious necessity for dividing the ter- 
ritory into two portions, one for each school house. 

Acting under their full powers, the Committee marked off such 
a portion of the territory as in their judgment would be accom- 
modated by the new school house, and they notified the inhabi- 
tants of that portion which included Wellington Hill, to attend 
a meeting at Waverly village, to consider the location of the new 
school house. 

The inhabitants on the remainder of the territory had no con- 
cern in the location of this new school house ; they could be in- 
terested only in the location of the old school house. They were 
accordingly notified to attend another meeting, holden on the same 
evening, in the East School House (F) to consider that subject. 

4th. The inhabitants of the designated territory met at Wa- 
verly, to consider the location of the new school house. A Com- 
mittee of three persons was appointed to select a location. Mr. 
Meade, one of this Committee, could not agree with the other 
two upon any spot. The Committee reported accordingly, and 
were discharged. 

5th. The Town Committee reported to the town at the expi- 
ration of four weeks, viz., Dec. 2d. 



46 

Their report designated no location, but they recommended 
that a new Committee should be appointed to select a location, 
and another Committee to build the school house, and that $2500 
be granted for the purpose. 

6th. The money was granted, and is now a part of the town 
debt. A Locating Committee, consisting of three persons from 
the Belmont District, was appointed, with instructions to report in 
a week. 

7th. The Locating Committee reported Dec. 9th, selecting 
the lot at the corner of Beach and North Streets, marked on the 
map A. 

8th. At the town meeting held March 9th, '57, an addition 
of $1000 was made to the previous grant of $2500. The deed 
of the land has been delivered, and the money paid. The esti- 
mates for the building are completed and the contract signed. 

This history of the origin, progress and final settlement of 
school accommodations for the inhabitants of Waverly, is a per- 
fect answer to the complaints of the people near Wellington Hill, 
that they cannot obtain sufficient school facilities. 

In 1855, Waverly asks for a temporary school and obtains it. 

Wellington Hill was never asked for a temporary school, and 
therefore has not obtained one. Can it be reasonably asserted 
that the town is indisposed to provide such a school until the 
request has been made and refused ? 

In the summer of '56. the town being about to build a large 
and expensive school house for the West District, asks Waverly 
to indicate its preference as to the location. 

Waverly replies, we do not care where it is located, because it 
cannot be so located as to accommodate us. Then Waverly asks 
for a school house for itself, and obtains it. 



47 

The town being about to build this school house for Waverly, 
asks Wellington Hill to signify where it desires the Beach Street 
school house to be placed. It answers as Waverly did with re- 
spect to the Howard Street school house, " We do not care where 
you locate it, for it cannot be so located as to accommodate us." 
But unlike Waverly, Wellington Hill does not ask for a school 
house, and therefore does not obtain it. 

After all the exertion of the town to provide school facilities, 
it was stated by Mr. Meade, and insisted upon by the counsel for 
petitioners that the Beach street school house was established in 
pursuance of a scheme to make Waverly and Wellington Hill 
quarrel over the location ! This scheme, to carry out which an 
expense of $3,500 has been incurred by the town, was defeated, 
according to the petitioners' theory, because Wellington Hill 
gracefully yielded, and suffered the school house to be placed 
where it was best for Waverly ! ! 

In the same manner, and with the same spirit, the motives of 
the town have been misrepresented in every case. 

When a small temporary school is established at Waverly, the 
petitioners exclaim, " That is to influence the Legislature." 

When a request is made for an article to be inserted in the 
warrant concerning a permanent school, the petitioners exclaim, 
" That was got up by outsiders." 

When a committee is appointed to consider where the permanent 
school shall be located, then the petitioners say, " That is a scheme 
to make Wellington Hill and Waverly quarrel over the location." 

When the money is granted, and the deed made, then they say, 
"You have not got your school house yet," intending to insinuate 
that it will not be built. 

And finally when the town has done all that it has been asked 
to do, both as to schools and roads, and manifested by its action, 
and proved by testimony its willingness and ability to do all that 
can be expected of it, the petitioners assert, and their counsel 
reiterate the assertion, " The town has not the ability to give us 
what we need, and it has not given us what it could !" 



48 

By what right is such an assertion made ? Upon what facts 
can it be founded? How can any person say that the town has 
not given them what they need, when it has given them all they 
ever asked for ? 

Who is to move in such matters if the persons most interested 
do not chose to move in them ? 

If the real reason why these petitioners are year after year 
trying to divide the town, be the want of schools, how does it 
happen that in three years they have never applied to the town 
for more school accommodations ? 

It would cost them nothing to make the attempt. It would be 
more manly, more reputable to found their petition upon some 
refusal of the town to comply with their requests, even should 
the refusal be reasonable, than upon the miserable array of fancied. 
"grievances" which form the yearly staple of their case. 

The truth is they do not want a school. They are afraid to 
ask for it, because if granted, their only card in this desperate 
game would be lost. 

East Grammar and Primary Schools, marked on the map F. 

The action of the Town Committee in reference to the 
removal of the school house has been explained. 

The circumstances show that the action was judicious. 

If it were injudicious the mistake was that of the committee 
and not of the town. 

1. The character of these schools. 

Mr. Whiting testified to the committee as follows : " The Pri- 
mary School is the best in the town. The Grammar School is 
as good as the Centre School, much better than the one in the 
West. It is better than the average of those in the neighboring 
towns." 

Mr. Isaac Stone said, " My children have made great progress 
at that school. I have two there now." 



49 

2. The character and condition of the school house. 

Mr. Hittinger quoted with much unction the report of the 
school committee of 1854-5, but could not remember that, the 
difficulties there enumerated have all been removed. He said 
that he took his three eldest children away because there was 
water in the cellar, but did not perceive his inconsistency in allow- 
ing his youngest child still to attend the school in the same build- 
ing notwithstanding the water. 

The present condition of the house, and the whole cause of 
complaint are explained by the testimony of Mr. Crafts, viz : 

" The condition of the East School House, as represented in the report for 1854-5, was 
noticed by the committee of 1855-6 ; and in August of 1855 the house was caused to be 
better ventilated ; the cellar drained as far as possible at the time ; the rooms new papered 
and varnished, and sundry other repairs made. The house is now well ventilated though 
not after the most approved method. 

" The water in the cellar was caused by the stoppage of a drain or culvert by the road- 
side, north and east of the house, near which stands a large willow tree. The roots of this 
tree had stopped the refuse matter which flowed into the drain, at the outlet or near it; the 
water was backed into the cellar through a drain from the school house which commu- 
nicated therewith. 

" Mr. George W. Harrington was called by myself, and under his orders the drain was 
opened, cleansed, rebuilt, and there has been no serious complaint of water in the cellar 
since that time. 

" There was expended on the East School house in August, 1855, and during that year 
3512 8 40, being more than was expended on all the other school houses in town." 

More money was spent to repair the East school house than to 
repair all the others in town. The smallness of the sum shows 
how little repair was required. 

3. The location of this School House. 

1st. The house was erected during the existence of what is 
called the " District system." It was not located by the town, 
but by the people of the District it was intended to serve. Mr. 
Meade himself was one of the committee appointed to locate it. 

2d. Subsequently, within a few years past, a committee of 
seven persons, all but one residents of the East District, was ap- 
pointed by the town specially to attend to the school wants of 

7 



50 

the District. Two of them, the late Mr. James Brown and Mr. 
Moses Stone, residents of the Belmont District. They were 
specially instructed to report what further accommodations were 
needed, and they never reported. 

3d. A meeting of the inhabitants of that District, excluding 
those in Waverly and near Wellington Hill, was called, in 
November last, to consider the expediency of removing the school. 

They were invited to say to what place it should be moved. 

There were fifty persons present ; and a majority of them from 
the Belmont part of the district, according to the testimony of 
Mr. Isaac Stone, who was there. 

The Belmont people could have designated any place they 
chose. 

They refused to move the School House, and Mr. Josiah Bright, 
one of the petitioners for the division, and therefore one of the 
very persons who complained of the want of school accommodation, 
made the motion not to move it ! 

The captiousness of these complaints of the petitioners, is shown 
by their action in regard to this School House. 

They complain of a location made by the assistance of one of 
their own men, the leader of this war upon the town. 

They complain of the want of sufficient school accommodations, 
when two of their very best men, not long since specially deputed 
to consider that very subject, declared by their inaction that no 
such accommodations were required. 

They complain that the house had water in the cellar some 
two years since, but contrive to forget that it was thoroughly 
repaired eighteen months since. 

They had the power to designate any spot on the whole of the 
Belmont part of the town, to which they desired the house to be 
moved, and they declared that they preferred to have it remain 
where it is ! 

These facts are a perfect answer to the paper flourish of Mr. 
Jonas Chenery. 



51 

He covers up with paper all the actually existing school houses, 
but this East School House. 

Then the petitioners triumphantly exclaim, " See how they 
have put all the school houses into one place ! What a large 
comparative area is left unprovided for! See how the Belmont 
people are neglected by the town !" 

The answer to this exhibition is — 

a. You were asked if you wanted more schools for this very 
neglected area, and two of your own men said " No /" 

b. You were asked to what place you would have the East 
School House moved ; you might have moved it to any place you 
chose, and you refused to start it ! 

c. Besides, although your paper flourish does cover three out 
of four school houses now erected, you knew well enough when 
you made your paper flourish, that the town had appropriated 
$2,500 to build a new school house, for this very area which 
your paper flourish does not come within a mile of reaching. 

It will not do for you to resort to the subterfuge of intending 
to cover only the houses now built. You desired to impress this 
Committee with the alleged neglect of the town to provide 
sufficient school room, and you left out a house which you knew 
would be built within a year. 

Such is the history of the action of Watertown in providing 
public school accommodations. 

The petitioners cannot be deemed to have proved any neglect 
on the part of the town, in this respect. Still less have they 
succeeded in proving such a neglect as amounts to an exigency 
calling for a division of the town. 

There are according to the testimony of Mr. Crafts, who took 
an accurate census, only ninety school children in the whole of 
the Belmont part of the town, requiring any school accom- 
modations. 



52 

Of these ninety children, seventy-one are registered in the 
public schools, and actually attend them. 

The remaining nineteen do not avail themselves of the means 
of public instruction. 

Does it follow that they are deprived of the opportunity by the 
neglect of the town? 

So?ne persons prefer private to public schools. 

Of all the children in that part of the the town, 80 per cent, do 
use the public schools. 

The remaining 20 per cent, do not use them, and this is but a 
small per centage. It is usually the case that more than this 
proportion prefer to use private means of education. 

The names of fourteen out of these nineteen children were 
stated in evidence. On Belmont street, within three-fourths of a 
mile of the East School House, lives a gentleman whose two 
children do not use that school. 

Within gun-shot lives another gentleman who does not send 
his one child there. 

Within one quarter of a mile, lives Mr. Hittenger, who does 
not send three of his children there. 

These persons are not prevented by distance from using this 
school. Nor are they prevented by the poor character of the 
school, for it is the best in town. Nor by the character of the 
house — for it has been thoroughly repaired, and though not of 
modern construction, is good enough. 

These gentlemen, and undoubtedly other parents of the nine- 
teen, prefer private means of education. 

Of the 71 who do use the public schools, 6 go to the High 
School, 17 go the Waverly school — leaving 48 who attend the 
East Grammar and Primary Schools. 

Do not these facts prove it to be untrue that any child is de- 



prived of his schooling because the school accommodations are 
insufficient ? 

But concede, for the sake of the argument only, that every 
thing claimed by the petitioners is true regarding these accommo- 
dations. 

Is the deficiency, even then, sufficient to amount to an 
exigency for the division ? 

Should not the petitioners prove a denial of right before they 
can be considered as having established their case? 

Would even one refusal of a school demanded amount to such 
denial ? 

It will be time enough to answer that question when the 
request has been made and refused. 

It will be time enough to say that an exigency for dividing 
this town has arisen ; when persons desiring schools have asked 
for them and have been refused ; 

When the town has manifested a disinclination to do its duty 
instead of the most liberal and anxious desire to perform it ; 

When a committee is satisfied, which this committee cannot 
be, upon any evidence produced to them ; that the children of 
the Belmont part of the town suffer from a neglect which the 
town is unable and unwilling, and determined not to repair. 

Upon this part of the case it clearly appears. 

That no more school accommodations are really needed by 
the Belmont portion of Watertown. This position is abun- 
dantly supported by the fact that never during the three years in 
which the petition has been pending, have the Wellington Hill 
people asked the town to provide them. 

If it be true that more such accommodations are required, 
the town is perfectly willing and ready to provide them. This is 
proved by the action of the town in providing additional facili- 
ties for Waverly as soon as they were requested. If Wellington 



54 

Hill had taken the same course, who shall venture to assert that 
they also would not have succeeded ? 

In no case can the mere want of proper school accommo- 
dations form an element of an exigency for the division of a 
town, till that want be proved to exist, by the inability or refusal 
of the town to provide them after proper application. A position 
which cannot be maintained by any action of Watertown. 

4th. The last in this catalogue of " grievances" is 

An alleged depreciation in the value of real estate, as a conse- 
quence of the other "grievances." 

This depreciation is alleged to have been caused by the want 
of schools and roads. It is said to be absolute and relative. 

That is to say : Real estate in the Belmont part of Water- 
town, is worth less now than when it was purchased some years 
ago. 

Real estate in the other localities has risen in value, while that 
in this locality has remained stationary at the best. 

Only two witnesses for the petitioners, Mr. Meade and Mr. Hit- 
tinger, testified on this point. 

Like all the other testimony of the petitioners, it was very gen- 
eral, and amounted to nothing more than opinion. 

As rendered it is capable of being applied to every foot of land 
in the whole Belmont part of Watertown. 

Such testimony, it will be seen, by recurring to the map, can- 
not be true of the whole territory which is about equally divided 
by the line of Washington Street, from which it slopes both north 
towards the Concord turnpike, and south towards Belmont 
Street. 

All the land to which any such testimony can be applicable, 
must lie north of Washington Street. No land in any other part 
of that district has been offered for sale or is in the market. 

The only evidence as to absolute depreciation was that of Mr. 



55 

Meade, who testified that three or four years since he bought 
thirteen acres of laud for $ 300 per acre, and that he cannot get 
so much for it now, because there are no schools near it, and no 
railroad accommodations. 

This testimony does not prove that Mr. Meade's land has fallen 
in value, for he did not say that he had tried to sell it, or that it 
was in the market, nor did he attempt to show how much it is 
now worth. 

But if it be true that this land has actually fallen in value, of 
the two co-operating causes assigned by Mr. Meade, it is elear 
that the want of schools can have had no such effect, because 
there were no schools there when he bought the land ! 

The action of the Fitchburg railroad is the evident cause pro- 
ducing such a fall in value, if it has really taken place, 1st, In 
the genera] disregard manifested by the corporation of the re- 
quirements of near travel ; 2d, In discontinuing the early and late 
trains ; 3d, In extravagant increase of fares. 

Dr. Estes Howe's testimony is conclusive as to the fact and its 
causes. 

He testified as follows: "I am not informed that land has 
depreciated. There is much less accommod ation than when 
Waverly was laid out. It was laid out with a view to build a 
village like those on railroads. Soon after it was laid out, the rail- 
road cut down the facilities and gave less accommodation, from a 
mistaken notion as to the necessity of accommodating near travel." 

" There are too many in the market.'''' That is to say, fine 
building locations near Boston are too plentiful. The supply ex- 
ceeds the demand, and therefore real estate has fallen in price, 
though not in value. 

Real estate has fallen in other parts of the town. Mr. Seth 
Bemis testified, " That about seven or eight acres on the Fitch- 
burg railroad, for which $500 had been offered, were sold about 
two years since for $250 per acre. Last year a sale of land on 



56 

the same road was made for $100, which had been held at double 
that price." 

Here is a fall from building to farming prices, the cause being, 
according to the same witness, the action of the railroad in " re- 
fusing to stop trains ; giving less accommodation ; raising fares ; 
taking off trains, and the management of the road generally." 

The evidence as to relative depreciation is just as loose as that 
respecting absolute depreciation. There were but three facts 
stated from which any such inference could be drawn. The 
whole opinion was evidently mere guess work. 

Mr. Hittinger testified that he offered two carpenters a lot of 
land in fee, with business enough to support them, if they would 
build a house on the land and live in it. They refused the offer 
because there were no schools and no conveniences there ! 

It did not appear that either of these men could afford to build 
a house. They had but one child between them. The lot of 
land was in a marshy place, .near Fresh Pond, where there is no 
road, and no need of any. 

A friend of Mr. Hittinger's bought a lot of land, but would not 
complete the purchase, because there were no schools and no 
church. 

Another gentleman would not purchase the Richardson place, 
because it did not seem to be anywhere — no village, no church, 
no school — nothing. 

The same witness further stated that he had asked many per- 
sons to come there, and all refused, for those reasons, but not one 
such person was produced by the petitioners. 

The case on this point may be summed up thus : 

1st. It is not proved that real estate in the Belmont part of 
Watertown was depreciated, either absolutely or relatively. 

2d. If it is proved, the cause lies solely in the reckless action 
of the Fitchburar railroad. 



57 

3d. It is not proved that to incorporate this new town will 
raise the value of real estate there. 

4th. If it is proved, such an object forms no element of an 
exigency for division. 

5th. If the need of one or even two schools, causes their real 
estate to fall in value, such energetic, shrewd, intelligent and 
determined men as Mr. Meade, Mr. Hittinger, and others of these 
petitioners, would at least, have long since requested the town to 
build them. They would rather have built such houses out of 
their own abundant means, than submitted to their alleged 
enormous loss for want of them. 

6th. A small part of the energy which they have wasted in 
attempting for three years to procure a division of the town, 
expended in the right direction, would have procured them as 
many school houses as they needed. 

Finally, it is apparent upon the whole case, that no single one 
of the alleged grievances, nor the combination of them all, amounts 
to an exigency requiring the incorporation of a new town. 

The people of the Belmont portion of Watertown have had all 
their reasonable wants freely and fully supplied. 

By their own admission the roads are in good order. 

The town has shown an earnest and anxious desire, and is now 
and has at all times been ready, willing and able to afford all 
proper school accommodations, if they are not already possessed 
by that portion of the town. 

They have had more than double their share of town offices in 
twelve years. 

The remedy for any supposed grievance is in their own hands. 



58 

The distances which they have to travel are perfectly incon- 
siderable. 

The Belmont part of Watertown must forever remain an 
outskirt. Now it is the outskirt of Watertown ; if the new town 
be incorporated, it will forthwith become the outskirt of Belmont. 

Now it is the outskirt of a town which maintains a High 
School. Then it will be the outskirt of a town which will not 
have such a school, and will not be obliged to maintain one. 

There is not a village nor a business centre, nor a cluster of 
houses, nor anything which approximates to a settlement ; nor a 
shop where mechanics work, nor anything deserving to be called 
a store, on the whole of the Belmont part of Watertown. 

And finally, if this speculation shall succeed, the agricultural 
character of Watertown will be destroyed, and the town receive 
an injury which it will require more than ten years to repair. 



APPENDIX. 



a. re .a. b l db 

SHOWING THE 25 HIGHEST TAX-PAYERS IN WATERTOWN, AND WHERE LOCATED. 



Value of Value of Tax on Tax on 

Real Estate. Per'l Estate. Real Estate. Per'l Estate. 



Total. 



Austin James T. . . 

Bemis Seth 

Bemis Charles .... 
Bigelow Tyler. . .. 
Brown James (Estate) 

Coolidge John 

Cushing John P 

Chenery Winthrop . , 
Davenport Charles . , 

Hurd Susan 

Hittinger Jacob 

Hathaway John 

Mead Samuel 

Pratt Mary 

Stone Leonard 

Stearns Simon 

Stickney Josiah 

Thaxter Levi 

Templeton John 

Whiting Nath. P.... 
Winchester Estate . . 
Winchester Eliza G.. 
Waverly Company. . 
( W. D. Sohier&al. 

( Trust, of Bradlee Est. 

Wason William 



$16,000 
12,500 
22,000 
17,400 
27,500 
80,000 
16,300 
18,000 
26,500 
33,500 
5,000 
21,000 
37,000 
27,000 
10,000 
25,000 
14,100 
13,000 
17,400 
40,000 

32,000 
4^00 



$30,000 

6,000 

10,000 

15,000 

14,000 

2,500 

420,000 

10,000 

4,000 

7,000 

11,000 

40,000 

8,000 

2,500 

20,000 

23,000 

55,000 

18,000 

20,000 

50,000 

125,000 

25,000 

200,000 
25,000 



$96 00 

75 00 

132 00 

104 40 

165 00 

480 00 

97 80 

108 00 

159 00 

201 00 

30 00 

126 00 

222 00 

162 00 

60 00 

150 00 

84 60 

78 00 

104 40 

240 00 

192 00 

27 00 



$180 00 


36 


00 


60 


00 


90 


00 


84 00 


15 


00 


2,520 


00 


60 


00 


24 


00 


42 


00 


66 


00 


240 


00 


48 


00 


15 


00 


120 


00 


138 


00 


330 


00 


108 


00 


120 


00 


300 


00 


750 00 


150 


00 


1,200 


00 


150 


00 



$180 00 
132 00 
135 00 
222 00 
188 40 
180 00 

3,000 00 
157 80 
132 00 
201 00 
267 00 
270 00 
174 00 
237 00 
282 00 
198 00 
480 00 
192 60 
198 00 
404 40 
990 00 
150 00 
192 00 

1,200 00 

177 00 



Watertown. 



Belmont. 

Watertown. 

Belmont. 

Cf 

Watertown. 
Belmont. 

Watertown. 

Belmont. 

Watertown. 

Belmont. 

Watertown. 



Belmont. 
Watertown. 



I certify that the within is 

(Signed.) 



Watertown, Feb. 23, 1857. 

a true copy from the Assessors' hooks. 

Samuel Noyes, 
Town Treasurer. 



\ 






THE COLORED PORTION 

Showing the part proposed to be taken 
from it for the Town of 

iiiiiilf. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



II II Ml ! II II II il 111 I II M 

014 077 080 2 



